MANNA SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Manna Singh Chauhan praying for writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint him on the post of Physical Teacher Gr. III with effect from the date when the respondent No. 3 and 4 were so appointed with all consequential benefits together with interest @ 24% per annum and further declaring that the respondent No. 3 was not entitled to 10% extra marks for his domicile certificate and respondent No. 4 was not entitled to 5% extra marks for his district level sports certificate. Accordingly, the respondents should deduct such marks from the total marks secured by them.

(2.) SINCE the appointment of respondent No. 4 Mitthu Singh has already been cancelled as a result of enquiry conducted by the respondents following the judgment passed by this Court on 26. 5. 2005 in Ganesh Lal vs. State of Rajasthan (S. B. C. Writ Petition No. 1768/98) in which district level tournament certificate produced by him was found forged and consequently the weightage of 5% extra marks given to him was withdrawn and thus taking him out of the merit list. Question with regard to grant of extra weightage of 5% for his inclusion in the merit need not therefore be decided in the present writ petition.

(3.) ALTHOUGH the Hon'ble Supreme Court by an authoritative pronouncement in Kailash Chand Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2002) 6 SCC P. 562 while upholding the Full Bench decision of this Court in Deepak Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (1999) 2 Raj. L. R. 692 held that award of bonus marks on the ground of domicile in a particular district or real area thereof and such a provision contained in a government circular as discriminatory and ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Their Lordships however held that it would be proper to apply the Full Bench judgment prospectively i. e. from 18. 11. 1999, the date on which Full Bench judgment was delivered. It was therefore held that the appointment made upto 17. 11. 1999 need not be reopened and reconsidered. ALTHOUGH the appointment of the respondent No. 3 was originally made on 25. 3. 1998 and he was not allowed to join because there was some dispute with regard to his degree of B. P. Ed. He filed S. B. C. Writ Petition No. 1118/98 "ranjeet Singh vs. State" which was allowed by this Court on 20. 10. 2000 holding that the B. P. Ed. degree obtained by him was a recognised degree. The respondent finally appointed him by order dated 25. 9. 2001, copy of which has been placed on record with his reply at Annex. R3/5. The appointment in the present case having been made earlier than the said date would therefore be saved hence necessity to decide the petition on merits.